Future National Catholic Register Post: The Pope on Satan: Nine Things to Know and Share

Sunday, February 21, AD 2016

satan_the_devil_painting_by_Michael_Pacher

 

 

November 15, 2016

 

A furor has arisen regarding the Pope’s comment in an interview in his flight back to Rome that “Satan got a raw deal from God.”  Here are nine things to know and share:

  1. It is possible that a mistranslation occurred.  The colloquial Italian phrase that the Pope used for raw deal can also be understood to mean “distasteful deal”.
  2. The Holy Father may have been speaking humorously.  When Father Lombardi, Vatican spokesman was asked about this, he merely smiled, shrugged his shoulders and walked away.
  3. If the Pope was speaking seriously, perhaps he was intending to convey how Satan was looking at the situation.  Do not most sinners think they get a raw deal? Viewed from that vantage point, the Pope’s statement was correct, albeit incomplete.
  4. We must recall that this is the Year of Mercy and perhaps the Holy Father was attempting to say that God’s mercy extends even to Satan.
  5. The Vatican has denied that this statement constituted an all is forgiven message from the Pope to the Prince of Darkness
  6. This is not a reversal of the traditional teaching of the Church regarding Satan.  At most it is a minor development that the Pope may, or may not, expand upon.
  7. This statement was not made ex cathedra, but it must be treated with respect as Catholics must treat all statements of the Pope with respect.
  8. Islamic jihadists who are now calling Catholics devil worshipers are completely misinterpreting what the Pope said.
  9. I am not paid enough for doing this.

 

 

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Future National Catholic Register Post: The Pope on Satan: Nine Things to Know and Share

  • I dunno Don…you might have a bright future with NCR. You and the likes of Mr. Shea, a progressive new age quasi Catholic perspective! Go get the big bucks Donald! 🙂

  • Nine Things to Know and Share? With this pontificate it’s more like Nine Things to Grin and Bear!

  • The air crew on the pontifical flights should check the cabin pressure as it seems the Pope is not getting enough oxygen. If it is okay, then I humbly suggest a hefty dose of dramamine so that PF can sleep his way back to Vatican City.

  • And, as I am sure you know, Don, everyone in jail is innocent. 😉

  • They’re in jail because their damned lawyers screwed them over.

  • “They’re in jail because their damned lawyers screwed them over.”

    True. If their attorney wins the case, it was no great feat because they were innocent. If he loses the case it can only be because he was incompetent, corrupt, etc. Just ask any prisoner!

  • . Speaking of which, check Reuters tonight on the Pope calling for a worldwide ban on the death penalty. Here is one morsel: ” “The commandment “You shall not kill,” has absolute value and applies to both the innocent and the guilty,”
    Apparently his Bible doesn’t have the rest of the Pentateuch in which there are over 33 death penalties to the Jews from the same God who gave the fifth commandment….nor does his Bible have Gen.9:5-6 or Romans 13:4 which apply to gentiles and Jews at the governmental level. I like his heart…his mind is in chaos in certain areas of reality. He just left non death penalty Mexico whose murder rate is twenty times that of largely death penalty East Asia by UN figures.

  • Meanwhile, his frequent comments about the devil being real and being our enemy are one of the few areas where Pope Francis sometimes sounds more traditional than Pope Benedict.

    That said, there was a call on Fr Z’s blog for a nine hour novena to be prayed whenever Pope Francis gets on a plane with reporters. 😉

  • Bill, The Pope’s Bible seemingly is missing the part of Genesis wherein God commands that he who sheds man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed. Because man is made in God’s image.

  • T. Shaw,
    Yes…that’s Gen.9:5-6 which I mentioned and which a Cardinal quoted in the catechism in ccc #2260 in what I suspect was an effort to counter ccc #2267 by perhaps another Cardinal which says prisons suffice for protection now….a delusion refuted by Mexico, the second largest Catholic population.

  • It understandable why the Pope is devil friendly; they work together.

  • Fantastic.
    Nine things to share reminded me Jimmy Akin. He is trying his best these days.

  • This is not satire-this is dialogue with the devil: Cardinal Ravasi calls for Dialogue with Freemasonry . . .Cari Fratelli Massoni. Thier patron, the Light Bearer, Lucifer

  • November 15, 2016, why is this dated as printed?

  • It’s a future National Catholic Register Post.

  • “And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given to him to do two and forty months.” That would put it at September, 2016. Maybe we will have another pope by November.

Pat Archbold Fired From National Catholic Register

Tuesday, March 31, AD 2015

 

images0P1K5L71

 

Well this is no surprise.  Pat Archbold was repeatedly guilty of telling truth out of season which is apparently a mortal sin these days in the Catholic Church:

 

 

Yup, they fired me.

I am grateful for the five years I spent as a contributor to the Register, the online presence of which has grown immensely during my tenure and that of the other original group of contributors. There is a lot to be proud of there. I stuck with them in hard times even when they were completely broke and it looked like they would blink out of existence, only to be saved at the last minute. Alas and alack, our time together has come to an end.

There are many things I could say about why this happened and how and maybe one day I will say more. But for now, suffice it to say that my particular contributions have not been well received over the last year or so and that has lead to increasing tension. I suppose that is plain to anyone with eyes to see. I will note that upon my departure, among the top 10 posts for the last 3 weeks, you will find three of my contributions.

I am proud of my writing at the Register. I feel I have been consistent in my approach to writing and the topics I cover. I think I brought a viewpoint to the Register that is otherwise not well represented among their stable of good writers. The Church has been going through some tough times and as a consequence I have sometimes tried to tackle some tough issues. I have always tried to do so fairly and as a loyal son of the Church. I will leave it to others to decide whether the Register is better off without my writing or viewpoint. 

Continue reading...

91 Responses to Pat Archbold Fired From National Catholic Register

  • What a disgrace.

  • Surprised at all. Pat’s recent posts have made me very sad. He seems to openly mock Pope Francis as well as the second Vatican Council. If I were the Register, I wouldn’t want someone on my staff who chose openly mock and insult the current pope.

  • If I were the Register, I wouldn’t want someone on my staff who chose openly mock and insult the current pope.

    Well, deadpan reportage of some of Francis’ daily blurt might be mockery enough.

    Regrets the Register has had such troubles, and that the Vicar of Bray wing of the Church now owns it.

  • See, I choose not to openly insult and mock the Vicar of Christ, even if I disagree with some of his actions. I’m sorry that you seem to think it’s acceptable behavior for someone who claims to be an orthodox Catholic.

  • “Pat’s recent posts have made me very sad.”
    ***
    Oh, please. Spare us the passive aggressive nonsense. You’re just as likely to read sentiments quite similar to Pat’s from any number of people posting here. Yet, here you are, risking more “sadness”.

  • “Pat’s recent posts have made me very sad.”

    What makes me sad is that too many Catholics don’t remember this timeless admonition:

    “Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations” – Fr. Melchior Cano O.P., Bishop and Theologian of the Council of Trent.

  • Okay, JoAnna. This is the bit where you cite actual examples of Mr Archbold’s open mockery and insults directed toward the Holy Father. I haven’t seen anything of the sort from him, but maybe I missed something?

  • JoAnna
    “He seems to openly mock Pope Francis as well as the second Vatican Council.”
    Not true. Are you suggesting the Register published pieces openly mocking the Pope and the Council? Are you just lying?

  • Typical calumny from the likes of JoAnna. To her lot “mockery” is expressing any type of discomfort with the current Pontiff.

    And now we have two fishwraps with an NCR acronym.

  • Bingo, Pat Archbold. Consider it a badge of honor to have been let go. By the way, in all the articles of yours that I’ve read over the years, not once did I ever feel that you were “mocking” the Pope or disparaging VII. Always respectful. But thank God you pull no punches, either. Keep on doing what you do so well, at Creative Minority Report.

  • “Are you just lying?”
    ***
    Either that, or just plain ignorance as to what constitutes “open mockery and insults”. But it certainly seems that calumny is the order of the day where your reputation is concerned, Pat.

  • The tongue reflects what is transpiring in the heart.
    The utterances of Pope Francis betray a heart, at best, in conflict with its own perceptions and the Magisterium of the Church. A heart in conflict with its touted devotion to “mercy,” and a vindictive and retaliatory nature finally getting a chance for vengeance. A heart fossilized by adolescent resentments birthed in the novitiate, in conflict with the mystery of the Church. He really is the poster boy for his clique. And here it is right now, they go after another guy. Rosica, Dolan, now EWTN. Can you imagine what they are pulling off behind the scenes? Deeply saddening to see this man trashed.

  • And here I was giving them credit for not being totally off course when he was able to blog a response to the counter-Catholic-teachings Death Penalty group hug.

  • Pingback: Pat Archbold Fired From National Catholic Register | The American Catholic | Head Noises
  • So, in summary, Pat is too toxic for NCR, and yet they continue to publish Fisher and Shea.

  • Intelligent Catholic discussion could be forced underground, huh. Wouldn’t that be too bad! The NCR is inviting disaster on themselves and on their Church.

  • In the countries where the State has taken over churches– like a patriotic church in China or the Russian situation– Church media and Church leaders did not go gladly – they were forced underground by the secular State. Here today we are not at that point yet, though we do have a seriously compromised culture. But the secular transformers of society are given space to grow in influence and power by Church leaders (whether in the episcopate or the media) who do not articulate our side. They are going down before they have to. If EWTN only knew how much we and esp our children and grandchildren need those earnest voices, like Archibold, defending the Faith.

  • Would NCR have a financial reason for firing him? The opinion of big backer?

  • PZ, you beat me to the extreme irony.

    I wonder if either of them will give pause over this departure.

  • “So, in summary, Pat is too toxic for NCR, and yet they continue to publish Fisher and Shea.”
    ***
    Maybe Fisher will show up here at TAC to gloat over Patrick’s firing. There is precedent for that, after all.

  • “So, in summary, Pat is too toxic for NCR, and yet they continue to publish Fisher and Shea.”

    Yes indeed. What was is someone once wrote, sin makes you stupid?

  • I admit to not following Pat Archbold’s writings at the Register closely. Mark Shea’s writings are toxic and I don’t go to websites that publish him. Prayers for him today.

    EWTN has been accused of something close to Papal worship in the past with St. John Paul II. He appointed some real, in Pittsburghese parlance, “jagoffs” to be bishops, bit I never thought he had some agenda he wanted to shove down everyone’s throat.

    With the current pontificate, I have no doubts of his agenda. Look at what he says, what he does, who is around him and who he appoints. Is it any wonder why the Latin American Church is losing members? Not to me.

  • “Who am I to judge?” In other words::Go to hell, I cannot be bothered teaching the truth.
    .
    Pat Archbold’s capital punishment column was right on target. The Catholic Church in America is already an underground church. This is why our Bishops and priests do not speak out. That the Pope assists in sending our Bishops into the catacombs, is reprehensible.
    .
    At least there is still Creative Minority Report.

  • PZ: “And now we have two fishwraps with an NCR acronym.”
    .
    Terrible, isn’t it?
    The real problem about the crisis in the RCC is that many faithful Catholics don’t yet realize how grave the crisis is. And it is going to get worse, even after Pope Francis. We need prayers.

  • How very sad. For years I would get the free copy of the NCR inside the church . Good solid conservative paper. Read it every week. Then over the years it was gone! Now we have CDs or little booklets written by the “peace and love” crowd. I dont read them . I read the Wanderer or The Remnant ….. Both excellent newspapers I get in the mail. What bothers me is that very few priests will buck this trend. We rarely get any good sermons anymore that really matter. Pablum about Job , usually a canned sermon from some company that writes them for homilies or some Old Testament story… Whoopeeee!!!

  • How interesting that Archbold was betrayed by those close to him this holiest of weeks. Welcome National Catholic Register to the ranks of the New Pharisees.

  • The NCR did Pat a favor. They threw him off the Titanic before it hit the iceburg. BTW, it was really crappy that they fired him before a major Christian holyday. To show they can be impartial, they should fire Shea and Fisher before Halloween.

  • So, my question is where will we be able to find Mr. Archbold from here on out? His writing is honest, thoughtful and refreshing. Sure, it sometimes makes us uncomfortable but in the service of truth that is to be expected.

  • Patty that sounds like a call to have Pat start cross posting his stuff on TAC here… 😉

  • He says he’ll still be blogging at CMR.

    http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/03/a-big-thank-you.html

    You might harass him a bit to mention what “elsewhere” he’s got in mind. 😀

  • Yeah, some examples of Pat’s seeming “mockery” would be nice.

    Truly, making idols out of pontiffs and councils is rather silly. Some popes are poor leaders and some councils are failures. To argue otherwise is baffling to me.

  • This is the post that raised several red flags for me, in which Pat sounds like he’s denying the validity of Vatican II: http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/03/dont-blame-vatican-ii.html

  • And here he is implying that Pope Francis is telling orthodox Catholics to “shut up,” when the Holy Father is only encouraging people not to gossip (which, last time I checked, was indeed Church teaching): http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2015/03/shut-up-they-prayed.html

  • Patty,

    Pat has also written a couple of articles for Steve Skojec’s excellent and wholly orthodox OnePeterFive site, so we may see more of him over there.

  • IMO, Pat’s problem wasn’t so much what he wrote, but how he wrote it. An unhealthy spite grew into his sphere. Sad indeed.

  • And this one, which I think he (or the Register’s editors) may have edited after it was originally republished, because it doesn’t read like I remember — in the first version I read on the day it was published, he didn’t say that Scalfari was “putting words into the Pope’s mouth.” Rather, Pat seemed to be saying that the Pope had said the things that Scalfari claimed and no one cared. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/pope-heresy-marxist-yawn

  • PZ, are you claiming that the Register is on par with the Reporter? Can you please demonstrate where the Register has openly condoned heresy, as the Reporter has?

    Personally I do think Mark Shea should be fired as well, given that his public and flagrant vitriol of late is unbecoming to an orthodox Catholic. But I’m not the editor of the Register so it is their call to make.

  • So you claim he openly mocks the Pope… and all you can offer to substantiate it is what you read into what he’s published?

  • JoAnna really? He “sounds like,” and is “implying,” or this one must have been edited because it “doesn’t read like I remember.”

    Is that all you have? Because if it is you have nothing and your original offering was indeed a calumny.

    It just sounds to me that you are the type who definitely doesn’t like to read or hear anything that nudges you towards the edges of your comfort zone. But that type of writing, properly done and based in truth, is exactly what is needed, especially now. Mr. Archbold’s writing was worth reading for that very reason.

    The Popolatry and the council worship really needs to stop. But it is stoked because these are very useful errors for modernists, with the right pope of course.

  • Congrats JoAnna. You have managed to prove one thing through the links you provided: you do not know what the word “mockery” means.

  • This is the post that raised several red flags for me, in which Pat sounds like he’s denying the validity of Vatican II…
    .
    What on earth are you talking about? Nothing Pat writes in that short post could possibly be construed as “denying the validity of Vatican II”.

  • I do believe that Pat is a respectful and devout person. I would hope and pray that his writing is not censored. We all must pray for humility and the love for The Truth
    As Catholics, who love our Lord and His Church, we should be mindful how we react to people like Shea and his like. It’s easy to develop that hardness of heart. Having said that I believe that most Traditional Catholics are more heartbroken than angry and Our Lord knows this.
    It’s easy to feel very alone when defending Church Teaching to others, especially in one’s own family, but we are not alone. Our Lord is our defender and we must follow Him.
    Viva Cristo Rey!

  • Sadly, lines are being drawn for the likely upcoming schism. Pat’s just been directed to his side of the playing field, perhaps for his “dissent” from the new death penalty “orthodoxy.”

  • Are all of you relatively new Catholics? This process has been going on since the 60’s. There are traditionalists and conservatives. Pat is a traditionalist writing for a conservative paper so this was bound to happen. I’ve seen it dozens of times over the years. In fact the current kerfuffle is rather tame compared to the days of JPII’s ecumenism, inter-religious dialouge, and especially when he kissed the Koran.

  • Are all of you relatively new Catholics? This process has been going on since the 60’s.

    If your definition of “new Catholic” is “everyone younger than my kids’ grandparents” you may have an issue.

    I don’t consider this:
    http://jimmyakin.com/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html
    to be more of an outrage than a Catholic being fired from a Catholic paper for, apperently holding to Catholic teachings over prudential ones.

  • Joanna is a known Mark Shea groupie…

  • In fact the current kerfuffle is rather tame compared to the days of JPII’s ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, and especially when he kissed the Koran.
    *
    Since comments have touched upon the 2nd commandment [by which we are commanded to speak with reverence of God and all holy persons and things … ] the JPII should properly be addressed as Pope St. John Paul II [the Great]. Since a saint, who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn? [cf. Rom 8:33-34]
    *
    We are in Holy Week and my thinking is that those with this kind of thinking without knowing why the Pope did what they think he did, would have an issue with these words of the LORD to the good thief: “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise. [cf. Lk 23:43]

  • Personally I do think Mark Shea should be fired as well, given that his public and flagrant vitriol of late

    “Of late” in Joanna’s lexicon would be “in the last 10 years” in most people’s. Idiosyncratic usage makes for confused communications.

  • JoAnna
    You are a liar and a slanderer. Gluck with that.

  • “Joanna: Can you please demonstrate where the Register has openly condoned heresy, as the Reporter has?”

    Yes, their call for the abolishment of the death penalty (with which they aligned with the Reporter). This contradicts almost 2000 years of Church teaching which allows the state to enact the death penalty as a matter of retributive Justice.

    What will be interesting to see if the pope does the same on Good Friday, as reports say he plans to.

  • Robert, did you read what I posted about Mark Shea in this thread? He recently accused me of attempting to kill his grandchildren because of my reluctance to get my children vaccines derived from aborted fetal stem cells. Why do you assert that I am his “groupie”?

    Apparently I am not the only one who has been uncomfortable with Pat’s posts of late, hence why the Register chose to let him go. Those who have eyes to see, let them see.

  • Steve D: Catholics are allowed to have differing opinions on the death penalty. The Register believes it’s wrong. They are allowed to hold that opinion, as Catholics. Is is not heretical to believe it is wrong – unless you want to claim that JPII is also a heretic. (FWIW, I do not believe the death penalty is wrong, but I do agree it may very well be unnecessary in the U.S.)

  • Pat is a good solid catholic writer, a breath of fresh air. He calls it like it is.

  • @FMShyanguya,
    .

    Not I “. . . would have an issue with these words of the LORD to the good thief: “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise. [cf. Lk 23:43]”

    .

    The “good thief”, aka, St. Dismus merited Jesus’ blessing because he counted on Jesus’ mercy, and on his infinite good and compassion.
    .

    And see the wonderful prayer St. Dismus addresses to Him: “Lord remember me when you come into your kingdom” (Lk. 23, 42). He says very humbly, “Remember me.” He does not one to dare to ask for the first place in the kingdom, by his throne — although he has that first place by his cross. He does not even dare to ask for the last one; he is nothing but a bandit. St. Dismus only says, “remember me,” or — in other words — “have mercy on me,” the way the publican did, who did not even dare look up on account of his sins. His prayer is not long. As Jesus had recommended to his disciples, he does not multiply words (Mt. 6, 7).

    .
    And, St. Dusmus defended Jesus from the rebukes of the other condemned thief. And, St. Dismus may be the only one on Calvary (aside from the Blessed Mother and St. John) who was converted by Jesus and came to believe in His Redemptive sacrifice.

  • Catholics can indeed disagree on how and when the death penalty should be implemented. But they cannot demand the complete abolishment of the DP, for this denies the right of the state to retributive Justice, which contradicts Church teaching and is heretical. As far as I know, JPII never called for the complete abolishment of the DP.

  • In the last several decades, Big Education has failed the public in the US, Canada and Western Europe. We are at the point where criticism is considered the same as insult.
    The current Roman Pontiff’s words and actions in the Petrine office are clearly open to critique and criticism. The priest that the current roman Pontiff put in place to wreck the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata has been convicted in an Italian court for slander against the family of the founder of the FFI, who for all we know is still virtually under house arrest and has been ordered to pay restitution. Has the current Roman Pontiff done ANYTHING to discipline Fr. Volpi? If he has, Rorate would have reported it.

    Fr. Volpi is a convicted liar and the Roman Pontiff backs him. Birds of a feather.

    I have no use for papolatry and the Second Vatican Council should be painstakingly reviewed, word for word and anything not worthy of Catholic teaching that preceded it should be revoked. Its so-called implementation has led to an abandonment of Catholic teaching and furthered the decline of the Church in the Western World.

    Jesus never promised us that the Church would be free of selfish, greedy, weak, nasty, self serving men in the clergy. Warren Carroll’s book Isabel – The Catholic Queen discloses in great detail the sleaziness of the Church hierarchy in Spain in the 15th century. Scotland threw out the Catholic Church because of a sleazebag bishop and the problems he caused. Luther, not really a sane person to begin with, went over the edge due to popes like Borgia.

    Bishops and priests who blather never endingly about immigration, “social justice”, poverty, pacifism, ecumenism and “unity” while completely disregarding Church teaching about sin, The Last Four Things and how the Church used to deal with Islam (punch it in the mouth and kick it in the ass) do nobody any favors.

    Pat Archbold was forced out because the Register “can ‘t handle the truth”.

  • I know nothing about Pat Archbold or the National Catholic Register, but there is something very disturbing when a leader – spiritual or political – is set above constructive criticism. There is only one Messiah, and He is neither President Obama nor Pope Francis. May God protect Pat Archbold and help him to find alternate means of providing his valuable insight.

  • I’m not at all familiar with Pat Archbold and his blog.
    However, I’m confident he was fired for his truthful
    analysis of Bergoglio. Telling the truth has become a mortal sin
    in Bergoglio’s Catholic Church. Being truthful, also, will destroy
    the sinner’s reputation and moral character.

    To be a good Catholic in Bergoglio’s church, one must wear
    five-dollar shoes; eat baloney sandwiches; participate in
    sodomy; have more than one lover or spouse; and worship the poor.

  • I think Pat Archbold would be happy about leaving a place that didn’t appreciate his contribution. Taking on the Church of St. Francis is a holy crusade. Jesus would give Pat and atta-boy for his good work. We look forward to what Pat will do now that he is unchained.

    Also, let us hope that Joanna gets over being scandalized by the courage and truth expressed by Pat and others. Let her take off the blindfold of political correctness and see what’s actually happening. It ain’t pretty.

  • FM Shyanguya: “JPII should properly be addressed as Pope St. John Paul II [the Great]”
    .
    Tell that to the victims of Marcel Marcial (dear friend and collaborator of JP2).
    Tell that to the Christians who see ISIS beheading their families and friends. And the ISIS kissing the Koran just as JP2 did.
    Tell that to souls misled by the desecration(s) that took place in the holy houses of Assisi in October 1986.

  • As a new Catholic, I can see both sides of the argument. That part of the Church that happily and submissively, defends the traditional dogmas and doctrines of the Church, views any change with skepticism, and expects the right of review from the authoritative position. Oddly, those in the Church who hope to make adjustments in how to defend those same dogmas and doctrines – given a radically different world environment today – are now the ones in the authoritative position. It must be very frustrating for the traditionalists.

  • “Apparently I am not the only one who has been uncomfortable with Pat’s posts of late”

    You aren’t. I’m not a close enough follower/reader of the Register to say whether or not Pat’s “firing” was or wasn’t justified, nor do I have any desire to impugn his integrity or his intentions. I wish him nothing but the best and hope he can find an appropriate outlet for whatever he wishes to say.

    But I have to say there was something about his style and choice of topics that I personally didn’t care for, and could only take in small doses. The best way I can describe it, is a sort of pervasive doom and gloom attitude — the Pope is destroying the church, Obama is destroying the country, our future is going to be nothing but persecution and martyrdom and disaster, etc. The “problem” may have been not so much what he said, as how he said it. But, everyone’s style is different, and “your mileage may vary”.

  • But I have to say there was something about his style and choice of topics that I personally didn’t care for, and could only take in small doses.

    Again, everyone’s mileage may vary, but this is a website that continually publishes one writer who does nothing but snark away at anyone who offers even a hint of disagreement, and another writer who has basically carried out vendettas and whose husband relishes berating her interlocutors. That NCR sees fit to continue to have them in their employ while firing Pat says all you need to know about its motivations.

  • Elaine,
    Respectfully, wake up.
    Dominus vobiscum.

  • I don’t know which was funnier.

    The claim that the definition of ‘open mockery’: when the highest priest in our Church stands in the public square and tells the people we love to contradict 2000 years of Church teaching and Catholics use the Magisterium to explain the reasons it’s an error that robs them of salvation.

    or

    The claim Pat was out of sync with the tenor of Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher’s apostolate of open mockery.

  • Elaine, I somewhat agree with your opinion on Pat’s writing style, except for one thing: I like gloom and doom when it is focused on a deserving subject. Not so much when applied with a broad brush, but yes with a pointillist’s flair.

  • Oops, I wasn’t clear: Pat Archbold was often a pointillist to me.

  • Tell that to the Christians who see ISIS beheading their families and friends. And the ISIS kissing the Koran just as JP2 did.

    This is crazy with a side of ridiculous; you’re seriously trying to draw an association between a single incident where the Pope exhibited an ill-deserved sign of respect and murderous, monstrous slaughterers of children?
    .
    An out-of-context quote that’s about overcoming afflictions and trials because of the love of God and odd notion that not taking the Lord’s name in vain means you can’t criticize a saint is odd, but good grief! The bodies of those slaughtered for admitting they are Christians are not even cold, there are still possibly hundreds of hostage in the hands of known monsters, and you’re using this as somehow the same as kissing a book?

  • Foxfier,

    There are a number of Catholic radtrads who loathe St. John Paul II because he excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre, met with other religious leaders at Assisi and kissed the Koran.

    Lefebvre ordained bishops, including the crazy Williamson, without approval and that is a nono – and Lefebvre knew it. The Assisi gathering is still lamented in the pages of the Remnant, 19 years after the fact. Kissing the Koran was a mistake, but the only people who never make mistakes are Catholic radtrads.

    Maicel was a serial abuser, a hypocrite and a man who did much evil. But by all means, St. John Paul II was responsible for EVERYTHING that was wrong with the Church, wasn’t he? I wanna see how Catholic radtrads would have survived in Nazi and Communist controlled Poland. Instead, they whine on and on, annoying all but their precious little clique.

    By the way, it was Blessed Paul VI who removed from the Novus Ordo Calendar the Feast of the Most Holy Name of Mary, observed on September 12. Pope John Paul II put it back, along with hanging a painting of the Hussars’ charge down Kahlenberg Mountain.

  • The koran is simply another instrument the enemy puts before our face and asks Christ’s Mystical Body to submit or be executed.

    St. John Paul II was and is a mystic. Yes, he kissed the Koran but I would invite you to consider he kissed in the same gesture as we will bend over tomorrow and kiss the wood upon which our Beloved was executed.

  • Carol,
    Now he’s a mystic, huh. 🙂 This is getting good. Should’ve brought some popcorn.

    Perhaps he should’ve exhorted St. John the Baptist to bless Islam more often [Jubilee Pilgrimage JPII To The Holy Land (MARCH 20-26, 2000) Visit to Wadi Al-Kharrar], then we wouldn’t be in this mess, am I right?

  • Carol M: I like your response

  • Penguins Fan –
    *shrug* I don’t much care about the motivations for the crazy, it doesn’t change the true or false.
    And that was not just false, it was crazy.
    I am rather hoping Don isn’t too busy today, if it were my thread I’d be doing some house cleaning. He’s been getting pretty good results with polite reminders about thread hijackings, but I somehow doubt it will work this time.

  • I’m not saying that Pat’s concerns were exaggerated or misplaced, not at all. But, there is a big difference between calmly stating “Houston, we have a problem — and here’s what we need to do about it” and shrieking “We’re doomed! We’re all gonna die!”

    It is possible, IMO, to be realistic about a threat without making the situation sound hopeless. An example of a trad-leaning Catholic blog that does this fairly well, in my opinion, is Fr. Z’s What Does The Prayer Really Say? He has plenty of bad news to report, of course, but he also frequently asks readers to share their good news, and his “Brick by Brick” posts focus on successful efforts to establish the older/traditional forms of liturgy. He doesn’t just wring his hands about how awful everything is, but offers actual advice about what we can do about it.

  • Hell Joanna,

    Re: the death penalty: “Is is not heretical to believe it is wrong.”

    If by “wrong” you mean “intrinsically evil,” then I am afraid that you would, in fact, be in direct conflict with the perennial teaching of the Church.

    John Paul II did not like the death penalty, but even he realized that he had to recognize that it remains a licit option for states in both Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism.

  • Yep, fairly busy today, but I am on my lunch hour now. This thread is a monument to how threads take on a life of their own. All, please stay on topic and no personal insults. I am tempted to close down comments on this thread, but I will keep them open for now and I trust that my wishes will be respected.

  • Mr. McClarey, your word is law here. I’ll sign off and get some things done. Have a Blessed Easter.

  • A blessed Easter to you and yours PF!

  • That Pope Francis appointed Cardinal Pell head of the new Secretariat for the Economy should afford reason to pause before sentencing the Holy Father to the Catholic dustbin of history.

    “Nakedness is uncomely, as well of mind as body.”

  • Joanna may be a Mark Shea groupie but she may also be something else. I’ve read the article she links to substantiate her allegation Pat suggests Vatican II was invalid and I do not see how any rational person could draw such a conclusion.

    The article substantiates the indisputable fact that Vatican II cheapened Church teaching, which ultimately robbed Catholics of Sanctifying Grace like Luther. Without Sanctifying Grace, the pews of the Catholic Church were emptied.

    It was the dumbing down of Christ’s elect. The Common Core of the Catholic Church. The dimming of the intellect and starvation of souls.

    Pope Francis has at numerous times made mention of V2, saying how wonderful are the fruits. The empty pews, the souls lost, the empowerment of the devil inside and outside of the Church, priests living with gay lovers and cruising the side of highways looking for an afternoon delight, women who see the vocation of motherhood as an impediment to their personal growth and happiness, people who don’t know if they are women or men, the Church tinkering on the edge of moral bankruptcy and financial insolvency, not enough priests to sustain what our ancestors built.

    He has now for two years divulged his game plan. He has instructed bishops not to ordain men who appear to be faithfully practice the Catholic religion as they are nutters. He’s told bishops when same sex men apply to seminaries they should make no judgments. Women who follow the magnificat of Mary and accept children from God are mindlessly copulating like selfish, irresponsible rabbits crowding up the planet. He’s given everyone we know, including our children and people we love, the impression that the moral teachings pertaining to sex do not apply and feeding the poor is the sacrament of absolution.

    With every moral compass broken around us, he is poised to feed mortal sin rocket fuel which the devil will use to drive that soul to its spiritual suicide.

    These are people we love. This is the Mystical Body of Christ which we love more.

    There isn’t a job or bag of cash big enough to sell out either one of them.

    Get some popcorn and lemonade and find a good seat. Bring some extra hankies for sappy women and sissies. You’re about to see a good show.

  • So Pat is accused of being doom and gloom huh? Well, I think that is a totally appropriate response. Some of us have been dealing with this for a long time and disillusionment is understandable. Maybe people could stand by when Pius XI excommunicated the faithful Catholics of Action Francaise or when Pius XII gave us the “reformed” Holy Week rites. But then Paul VI gave us the Novus Ordo and Vatican II and JPII was the biggest ecumenist in the history of the papacy not only kissing the Koran but hosting the indifferentist spectacle of Assis 1 and 2 where a statue of Buddha was placed on the tabernacle. At one time, I had hope for the traditionalist movement but it has totally fragmented into what must be dozens of different little sects like the SSPX, SSPX “resistance”, CMRI, SSPV, etc. etc. And it’s not like those traditionalist sects actually have much of a following. The biggest, the SSPX has something like 500 priests. The worldwide Catholic Church has something like 400,000! So yeah, I don’t blame Pat at all for doom and gloom. And one thing that is indisputable. After the last 50 years, nobody will ever see the Catholic Church the way people saw it in the 50’s. That’s gone forever.

  • I am wearied! [Cf. Is 7:13]
    *
    This is what Pope St. John Paul II [the Great] says about the Qur’an and Islam [cf. Muhammad? in Crossing The Threshold of Hope. And I encourage all to read not only the entire Chapter, but the entire book]:

    […] Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of God’s self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside.
    Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity. […]

    .
    To my knowledge, the Vatican has not clarified the picture of the saintly Pope allegedly kissing a green book and I am not aware if they have even been asked [cf. http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/36552/has-the-vatican-issued-clarification-for-pictures-which-appear-to-show-pope-st-j%5D.
    – Re: the green book, cf. Did the Pope (John Paul II) REALLY kiss the Koran? [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2820143/posts].
    In my earlier comment, I referenced the 2nd commandment. In this, it would be good for us to recall the eighth [calumny and detraction].
    To me, knowing what the Pope has said on Islam, the Qur’an, and Muhammad, and not knowing the details of the pictures nor whether or not the green book was a Qur’an, etc., and because the person so accused is not only the Pope but a saintly Pope, I honestly do not know on what basis is the alleged scandal.
    *
    The Sacred Triduum begins today and there are plenty of lessons from these solemn days. In my earlier post, I mentioned the good thief. Even better would have been to mention the first Pope St. Peter and his brother Apostles. St. Peter denied our LORD, Judas betrayed him, and the rest fled. All but one are saints.
    We do not say, ‘St. Peter? Tell it to the people he scandalized by denying our LORD …’
    *
    Re: @Tom M.’s That’s gone forever. Will the Church not follow her LORD, her head, whose body she is? Good Friday is not the end of the story. Easter soon follows on the third day.

  • It’s good to get a number of quotes from JPII on Islam so we’re not giving a slant. Nevertheless, could you imagine a Pope Pius X saying the following about Islam. From JPII’s addressto the people of Jordan?
    *
    “May St John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan, and all who participated in this celebration, a memorable celebration. I’m very grateful to all of you. Thank you very much.”
    *
    Asking a saint to protect Islam is worse than kissing the Koran!

  • FM Shyanguya you can believe whatever you want. But in my book any Catholic who prays that St. John the Baptist should protect the heretical religion called Islam, is definitely not a Catholic saint.
    http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/10/22/category-archive-message-board-151-october-22-a-very-sad-day/
    .
    God bless! Thanks everybody.

  • “Houston, we have a problem — and here’s what we need to do about it” and shrieking “We’re doomed! We’re all gonna die!”

    Houston, we’ve a problem. The pilot of the plane is a kamikaze. Musn’t panic.

  • Tell that to the victims of Marcel Marcial (dear friend and collaborator of JP2).

    John Paul’s entire life prior to 1978 was spent in Poland and Maciel was based in Mexico. How could they qualify as ‘dear friends’ and ‘collaborators’? John Paul was indulgent toward Maciel’s order and did not believe accusations against him (in part because many of them were rather dubious).

  • Pat will land on his feet, and has indicated that he doesn’t need the NCR for financially. But God Bless him, he has had the courage to tell it like it is. Whether or not some don’t like his ‘style’ is completely irrelevant to his message. He is sounding the alarm that is so necessary for the good of Catholics everywhere no matter their stripe. Does anyone enjoy witnessing our Church being highjacked in real time? I don’t think so. But if some would only take off their rose colored glasses, maybe they could at least prepare for what’s coming. I do believe that is his goal as it should be. This business about calumny seems to be a blanket excuse for not wanting to face facts. Calumny seems to be the buzword for being in complete denial. Nothing that Pope Francis has said or done has much to do with ‘infallibility’, but they are teaching moment, that’s undeniable. When all of Hollywood wants to canonize him while he’s still alive says something, and it isn’t good. His off the cuff words and actions are harming the Church, and they are emboldening modernist Prelates. I don’t believe that it’s sinful to point that out. I think it’s necessary. Yes, he has given talks that are very orthodox, and as Catholics we are obligated to listen and obey what is truthful, but we are not to listen or obey dissent, and he has spouted quite a bit of that. Sound the alarm we must, as charitably as we know how to do, but it must be done. ‘Houston, we have a problem’? Been saying that for some time now……..’Rome, we have a problem!’

  • Joanna,

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church permits the death penalty – therefore, it cannot be wrong. They have a serious theological flaw going on. You are not uncomfortable with this theological error but you are uncomfortable by a person who pointed out the error. I’d be one scared Catholic if I found myself suffering from that affliction.

    Cenlacatholic, yes, St. John Paul II was and is a mystic. I’m guessing your exposure to him is limited to reading quotes. Pick up a copy of his enclyclical on redemptive suffering. You can find it on the internet. You better watch out for him – literally – he takes a special interest in souls struggling in the spiritual warfare that invoke his name.

    Mary – thanks for the kind words.

    Blessed Triduum to all.

  • My response to Pope John Paul II’s prayer May Saint John Baptist protect Islam […]

  • Pingback: National Catholic Register fires Faithful Author who was not afraid of Speaking the Truth | Biblical False Prophet
  • More than a little of this decision came from the article he wrote about the Church and evolution.

Various and Sundry, 3/5/15

Thursday, March 5, AD 2015

– Jay Anderson has indicated he has written his final blog post, so I will provide him one last link. It seems that the heads of the four families – excuse, me the big four Catholic publications have joined forces and issued a joint editorial. They have set aside their differences and collaborated to discuss the burning issue of the day. Liberal and conservative, orthodox and heterodox: these labels mean nothing when it comes to this unequivocal teaching of the Church*. Yes, finally, America, National Catholic Register, National Catholic Reporter, and Our Sunday Visitor have written their joint editorial calling for an end to abortion, rebutting same-sex marriage, condemning the genocide of Christians taking place in the Middle East, calling for the abolition of the death penalty.

These four Catholic publications have decided that the paramount issue bridging the gap between these distinct entities is the death penalty. What’s more, they’re not calling for the election of local legislators who will vote to outlaw the death penalty in their respective states. Oh no, they’re calling for the raw judicial activism when the Court decides on the case of Glossip v. Gross. Despite the fact that the death penalty is one of the few things manifestly countenanced by the U.S. Constitution, (after all, if you need to write amendments saying you can’t deprive someone of their lives without due process you’re tacitly admitting you can deprive citizens of their lives with due process) these four publications are totally cool with judicial activism so long as such activism comports with their personal preferences.

Jay notes that in his very first blog post he wrote:

Sir Thomas More’s admonition to Roper should serve as a warning and a reminder to Catholics that the activist Court that sides with us in this particular instance is the same activist Court that is likely in the future (as it has in the past) to “turn round on us” and use its increasingly strident activism to decide cases contrary to our Catholic values.

This was in reference to Roper v. Simmons, another death penalty case. Now, here we are, ten years later these supposedly Catholic publications are totally fine with the use of raw judicial power. They’re fine with it now, but where will they be in ten years when judicial activists deprive Catholics of basic First Amendment rights?

Like Jay I am personally opposed to the death penalty, but I’m even more opposed to legislation by judicial fiat, and those who support the Court declaring unconstitutional that which is concretely and unambiguously constitutional are compliant in an act of judicial tyranny, even if it is for an ostensibly good cause.

*Footnote here for the sarcasm impaired. Let’s just say that traditional Catholic teaching is no more prohibitive of the death penalty than the U.S. Constitution.

– Anna Mussmann muses that we’re over-complicating motherhood. It’s of a similar vein to what I’ve written before, suggesting that helicopter parenting is a symptom of selfish parenting. Her take is a little different, but well worth the read.

– I just can’t quit the latest Clinton scandal. It’s odd that this is the thing that has dented the Clintons’ teflon coating, to the point where even Lawrence O’Donnell is abandoning ship. Now the website Gawker demonstrates that Clinton’s use of a personal email account was a huge security risk. Long story short, Clinton preferred having her emails fall in the lap of Russia than an intrusive American press.

Here’s another Hot Air link. The Republican party now controls more state houses than any point in recent history, and they owe it all to President Obama. The party that is supposedly on its deathbed is routing Democrats at all local levels. This ascendancy started before Obama was immaculated, but has only sped up since.

– Darwin’s take on when to call the cops on a kid.

If you see a property or violent crime being committed, by all means call the cops. Or if a kid is doing something which seems likely to directly result in death or injury. If a child seems genuinely lost, upset or hurt, and you’re not able to find an adult connected with them (especially if you’ve taken the time to ask the kid if she needs help and she says yes) then by all means summon help.

But keep in mind that calling the cops on a family can have traumatic (and at times even fatal) consequences. “I wouldn’t let my kid walk home alone,” is probably not a serious enough reason, unless you happen to live rather literally in a war zone.

A victory today for the revolutionaries who dared to sled on Capitol Hill.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Various and Sundry, 3/5/15

  • Over at PJMedia, Michael Walsh suggests that Hillary is being sent a Sicilian message.

  • Looks like the one last link is broken. Missing a colon.

  • “What’s more, they’re not calling for the election of local legislators who will vote to outlaw the death penalty in their respective states. Oh no, they’re calling for the raw judicial activism when the Court decides on the case of Glossip v. Gross. Despite the fact that the death penalty is one of the few things manifestly countenanced by the U.S. Constitution, (after all, if you need to write amendments saying you can’t deprive someone of their lives without due process you’re tacitly admitting you can deprive citizens of their lives with due process) these four publications are totally cool with judicial activism so long as such activism comports with their personal preferences.”

    National Catholic Register should know better. America and National Catholic Reporter have as much respect for the Constitution as they do for the Constitution: bupkis. Our Sunday Visitor should have this as their official song:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGhTr8lDCV0

  • ….Well, I guess we won’t be subscribing to the NCR. Too bad, although at least they didn’t do this the week after we subscribed. (We were planning on it as soon as our mail situation got sorted out.)
    ***
    Tons of binding teachings, and they decide to go for prudential activism, and in an especially stupid way. I’d like to call it something other than stupid, but that’s solidly in the “let’s chop down all the laws of England– again!” category.

  • The motherhood article has some good points, but I think it starts out with a big problem:
    Some time ago I made the mistake of picking up a parenting magazine.
    Don’t do that, unless it’s for amusement. It’s like picking up Cosmo or some guy version, but with fewer pretty ladies.
    They make money by making problems, and trying to get folks to solve them. (Also, the recipes tend to either not work, or taste horrible. I’m now pretty sure that the “creative treats” are more for impressing other adults than for the kids.)
    Biggest problem with motherhood is that, if you do it right, it puts a lie to the “you can have it all” BS we’re fed– you are not going to have a high-pressure male type career and be supermom.

  • Pingback: A Disgrace | The American Catholic
  • Thanks, Paul!
    ***
    One point of clarification: I’m not just “personally opposed” to capital punishment, I’d actually like to see it abolished. Just not by judicial fiat. I know that’s what you meant, but just wanted that point to be clear when the inevitable accusations start rolling in that we’re only “personally opposed” and therefore just like Mario Cuomo.
    ***
    Also, I’d just like to point out that, while I want to see the death penalty abolished, those Catholics who are essentially arguing that opposition to capital punishment is de fide for Catholics are full of it. Yes, I agree that, as Catholics we SHOULD oppose capital punishment, following the admonitions of Pope John Paul II; but it is a blatant misstatement of the Faith to proclaim that Catholics MUST oppose capital punishment or else be “dissenters”.
    ***
    Finally, this “cooperation” among the “Group of 4” national Catholic publications on this particular issue raises a question for other issues: Since these publications are “uniting [them]selves with the Pope and his predecessor on this issue” (to quote the justification offered by Register on the publication’s Facebook page), I am assuming that they will similarly unite and show Catholic solidarity with a joint editorial backing the Church’s teachings when the Supreme Court rules on same-sex “marriage” later this year?

    Yeah, right. I won’t be holding my breath.

  • They use (among other sophomorical ruses) that capital punishment meme as smoke screen to justify support for the uber evil Dem party, a.k.a., Abortion, Inc.

  • Please see my comment on the death penalty at the next post: A Disgrace.
    Herewith is my take on informed consent and guilt and devil possession.
    When a sovereign person chooses to relegate himself to entertain evil he chooses a diminished capacity, forfeits his sovereignty over himself and literally sells himself, his soul to the devil. Even for atheists, who do not believe in the human being, composed of body and soul, embracing a big lie and the Great Liar poses some hazards. Informed consent becomes impossible because of diminished capacity. Obsessed or possessed by the devil, a person’s free will is bound and therefore informed consent cannot be forth coming.

Paul Ryan & Subsidiarity

Thursday, April 12, AD 2012

Ever since Congressman Paul Ryan announced his budget plan, claiming that it was inspired by his understanding of Catholic social teaching (CST) in general and subsidiarity in particular, old debates about the meaning of CST have flared up once again. Michael Sean Winters of NCR blasted Ryan’s conception of “subsidiarity”; then Stephen White of Catholic Vote critiqued some of Winter’s own oversimplifications. Since everyone and their aunt in the Catholic blogosphere will weigh in on this at some point, I’ll get it over with and throw in my two-cents now.

First: I do believe that some of Ryan’s statements are oversimplifications. For instance, he claimed that subsidiarity and federalism were more or less synonyms for one another. They are not. Stephen White pointed out that these concepts are complimentary, however, and they are.

Secondly: Winters, and he is not alone in this, repeats Vatican statements about “access” to health care as if they were an exact equivalent with Obamacare or other types of government-run healthcare schemes. As White pointed out, Winters presents his leftist policy preferences as non-negotiable points of CST.

Third: I think the entire framework of this discussion needs a serious overhaul.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Paul Ryan & Subsidiarity

  • Very good, you added to excellent White’ piece.

  • As well, Rights being naturally endowed unto us by God, their exercise cannot entail any kind of need to obtain the service or labor of others, except in their mutual defense. If Health Care (or housing, or food, or any other lefty favorite) is a natural right, then this entails the enslavement of those who provide it, as rights cannot be purchased, but only exercised.

    How this quiet little piece of logic goes unshouted by the establishment GOP is, or at least used to be, beyond me.

  • generally I agree with you, but here ( in your “on one level” paragraph) something sticks:
    to me “precedes” the State does not just mean preceding in time, but precedes in another way– a ranking — now that we are technologically capable, for instance, of feeding and hydrating T Schiavo, charity calls us to that–
    we are not called to live like we are BC era,; I think we are called to work with what we have.. natural law does not take us back to some primitive state-but applies here and now with what “wherewithal” we have… that’s why “precedes” does not necessarily mean “precedes in time”
    once again I am more than willing to be corrected as needed!
    I think you are saying extraordinary measures are not a human right — like heart transplant etc–

  • Anzlyne,
    I suspect that you and WK are not in agreement. WK is making the fairly time-honored case in favor of the proposition that rights are negative rather than positive. Libertarians point out, quite correctly, that the trouble with affirmative or positive rights is that they logically require the functional enslavement of others. This position has never been accepted by the Church, and in fact has been pretty directly criticized. That said, my sense is that the Church’s view and that of libertarians in this limited respect are not necessarily contradictory insomuch as libertarians are criticizing affirmative “rights” that are enforceable by government whereas the Church is affirming the importance of such rights vis-a-vis society, and government and society are not synonymous. More specifically, the Church is saying that society must be ordered in a way so that its members rights to basic needs are satisfied; liberarians do not oppose that as such, as long as the term right does not mean a legal right that can be enforced against others via government coercion. The Church does not oppose the latter, but does not require it either.
    All that said, I like the fact that Ryan seems to take his Catholicity seriously. I worry that he also takes Ayn Rand seriously, and while Rand had her insights her “philosophy” is ultimately not remotely compatable with Roman Catholicism.

  • All good points here. Consider that Mortimer Adler in his book “10 Philosophical Mistakes” makes the point that a human right to something doesn’t mean that a person must have that thing provided by either the government or his neighbors if he can’t get it for himself. It means that no one, whether government or anyone else can morally PREVENT the person from fulfilling that right. Often fulfilling that right is based on good fortune and circumstance. We see that in the right to bear arms. The government or anyone else doesn’t have the resposnsible to buy you a gun if you can’t afford one.

  • I think I am not in opposition to WK Aiken’s post– I do think that our rights precede the state, that they are not “posited” by the state… they are negative in that they are not imposed but are natural– I apologize that I wasn’t very clear who I was responding to– it was Bonchamps paragraph:

    ” On one level, something that has only been available for roughly a century or so cannot possibly be a “basic human right.” Rerum Novarum establishes that the natural rights that belong to each individual precede the state; this
    categorically excludes something as specific and dependent upon a high level of technological development as a lifetime of health services. Such goods and services can only be “accessed” to the extent that a technologically advanced society can produce them, and this capability in turn depends upon on a level of economic freedom that cannot be attained with purchasing mandates, excessive tax burdens, and bureaucratic control.’

    And I do agree with Bonchamps about all of this generally –at the end of the paragraph
    I agree we have to recognize that economic ability/ freedom to act which describes the level of burden to provide access to advanced health care. I agree that none of this burden (brother’s keeper) can be coerced by the state, but is social construct of individuals within families/ communities.
    my only question to Bonchamps was about our social burdens/responsibilities in his words since “roughly a century ago” — it sounds like our rights are defined a bit by the technical ability to intervene..
    so I say we do have the rights and mutual responsibilities and some of those responsibilities depend upon our “wherewithal” what we can and should do here and now is different than what would have been morally required back then or over there : )

    once people didn’t know how to read, but an education I think is a basic human right– provided first and foremost by the parents

  • I think I am not in opposition to WK Aiken’s post– I do think that our rights precede the state, that they are not “posited” by the state… they are negative in that they are not imposed but are natural– I apologize that I wasn’t very clear who I was responding to– it was Bonchamps paragraph:

    ” On one level, something that has only been available for roughly a century or so cannot possibly be a “basic human right.” Rerum Novarum establishes that the natural rights that belong to each individual precede the state; this
    categorically excludes something as specific and dependent upon a high level of technological development as a lifetime of health services. Such goods and services can only be “accessed” to the extent that a technologically advanced society can produce them, and this capability in turn depends upon on a level of economic freedom that cannot be attained with purchasing mandates, excessive tax burdens, and bureaucratic control.’

    And I do agree with Bonchamps about all of this generally –at the end of the paragraph
    I agree we have to recognize that economic ability/ freedom to act which describes the level of burden to provide access to advanced health care. I agree that none of this burden (brother’s keeper) can be coerced by the state, but is social construct of individuals within families/ communities.
    my only question to Bonchamps was about our social burdens/responsibilities in his words since “roughly a century ago” — it sounds like our rights are defined a bit by the technical ability to intervene..
    so I say we do have the rights and mutual responsibilities and some of those responsibilities depend upon our “wherewithal” what we can and should do here and now is different than what would have been morally required back then or over there : )

    once people didn’t know how to read, but an education I think is a basic human right– provided first and foremost by the parents

  • Throughout 2009 during the purported “health care debate”, the version of CST as has been corrupted by modernity, legal positivism (as nicely mentioned by MP), liberation theology, etc., was manifest in ways not herebefore many Catholics had known with the exception of the flick in time CHD scandal. I can leave to others the root causes of that corruption but the domestic policy people at the USCCB and many bishops contributed greatly to the present day impoverished notions of what constitutes CST. I haven’t done this in a while as it’s simply too depressing but over the years one could witness first hand how the USCCB gave the Democratic Party platform its “theological” approval as it promoted higher taxes, cap and trade, mortgage bailouts, the Fannie/Freddi debacle, and many other statist oriented laws. Subsidiarity gets nothing but lip service. Free enterprise receives nothing but disdain.

    I like what George Weigal said in a lecture, From Centesimus Annus to Deus Caritas Est, The Free and Virtuous Society of the 21st Century, about subsidiarity and federalism:
    “The principle of susidiarity teaches us that decision-making in society should be left at the lowest possible level (i.e., the level closest to those most effected by the decision), commensurate with the common good. American ‘federalism’ is one empirical example of the principle of subsidiarity at work in actual political life. Articulated under the lengthening shadow of the totalitarian project in the first third of the twentieth century, the principle of subsidiarity remains today as a counter-statist principle in Catholic social thinking. It directs us to look first to private sector solutions, or to a private sector/public sector mix of solutions, rather than to the state, in dealing with urgent social issues such as education, health care, and social welfare.”

    As I’ve stated before, our constitutional federalism offers us the template for the reality of subsidiarity, which we should cherish.

    Finally as to any “worry” that Paul Ryan takes Rand’s “philosophy” seriously, I find that not being helpful to the discussion inasmuch that it is a random perjorative. Ryan, like many of us, have read Rand and particularly Atlas Shrugged. I would hope most college students do read it. Rand, as Ryan read it and as most of us have, provides keen insight into the simple understanding that economics, at its heart, is a behavioral ‘science.’ Where Ryan and any Catholic reading Rand depart radically from her is with her depressing notions of glorifying human depravity, egoism, selfishness and objectiveism…..but then that is the flip side of the coin known as freedom….the same coin which gives us the choice to obey Him, to live out authentic Charity and not the faux charity of government coercion, confiscation, dependency, etc. And when you really think about Rand’s depressing view of human nature, it’s not much different than the ideological ingredient found in socialism, or statism.

  • Paul Ryan speaks the truth regarding destructive, massive government spending and sky-rocketing debt that will enslave your children.

    The truth damages Obama’s narrative.

    Paul Ryan must be destroyed.

    Left-wing gangsters cloaking themselves in their version of CST politicize the Gospels to smooth the way for socialist serfdom.

  • Anzlyne,

    Thanks for the comments. By “precedes”, I actually think that Rerum Novarum – other natural rights doctrines too, in fact – really means “morally precedes.” It is a way of stating that man’s rights are not derived from the state, they do not depend upon the state, and the state can’t have some obligation to actually provide things for people; the state is instituted for a very specific purpose, which is to safeguard natural rights.

    “my only question to Bonchamps was about our social burdens/responsibilities in his words since “roughly a century ago” — it sounds like our rights are defined a bit by the technical ability to intervene..”

    That’s now how I would have it. I don’t think our rights should depend on technology. I don’t think new technologies that make the mass production of goods and services possible can create new rights to those goods and services. If something was not recognized as an entitlement 1000 years ago mainly because of reasons of scarcity, it can’t be recognized as an entitlement today, because we still have scarcity – just less of it. It is still impossible for everyone to get everything they want.

    The main reason people are agitated and clamoring for egalitarian “social justice” is precisely because the system they despise, capitalism, has made so many people so much better off that the presence of a marginalized underclass really sticks out like a sore thumb. But even this underclass, at least in the Western world, lives better than much of the rest of the world today and most of humanity throughout history. So there is a lot of impatience.

    More people die each year in auto accidents in this country than die from a want of health insurance. I would say that there’s just as little we can efficiently and justly do at the federal/bureaucratic level to prevent all auto accidents as there is all deaths related to a lack of health insurance. The amazing thing is that this rules out nothing for people whose imaginations can possibly operate outside of federal bureaucracies. But you’d have to be uninterested in controlling and plundering your neighbor for that, and I guess that’s too much to ask from fallen man.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Hi Bonchamps
    so we agree on what “precedes” means– that it is a moral ranking so to speak –
    your reference to our rights as related to time ( last century) and the development of technology threw me. I think you said that the ability to offer these things only for less than a century means we cannot see the application of technology as something that could be coerced by the state– ok
    I have no probem understanding negative or natural rights given by God preceding the state– but our real choices change a bit because we
    live now

  • Anzlyne,

    My point is to warn against the illusion that things have changed so much that we can declare specific goods and services “rights”, as if they existed in super-abundance and only some sort of irrational prejudice was preventing an unlimited supply to meet an unlimited demand.

  • Yes. Good point. Thank you. Also BPS point is well taken.

  • First among the many things I like about Paul Ryan is that he sees the need to take the CST narrative away from the left (which unfortunately includes the USCCB when it comes to issues like this) and proceeds to do just that.

  • If it’s Socialist to have Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade, than count me as a Socialist! What we need now is Socialized Healthcare. Healthcare for PROFIT no longer works! 50% of the population can no longer afford Healthcare! And 50% of the Country lives at or below the POVERTY LINE! Remember, the early Christians were Socialists! They held everything in Common! Don’t tell me that there is no money for these programs-that is pure BS! Stop giving BILLIONS of dollars away every year as “Foreign Aid”! Stop trying to police the world and cut back on the more than 1000 military bases we have around the world! Tax the RICH! Vote Democratic! Let Obama lead-not the Rich Republicans!

  • The notion of subsidiarity has captivated my attention for years, and I’m hoping that this concept soaks in to the public mind. As stated by others here, subsidiarity can be applied more broadly than rule-making. Specifically, charity needs to happen in person to person contact rather than through the organs of the State. State-run charity, welfare, had the promise to be more efficient than churches operating through disorganized but well-meaning individuals, but the state operates as would a machine between the donor and recipient. Without contact between the donor (taxpayer) and recipient (poor) there is no sense of charity and thankfulness, but only their opposites. A machine cannot convey love.

    In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the first two passers-by likely wished that someone else would help.

  • Richard,

    Use your inside voice.

    The “poverty line” is an arbitrary line. To be at the American “poverty line” today is to be wealthier than at least half of the people in the world, if not many more than that.

    I do agree that we should stop policing the world and slash the military budget significantly. But that money ought to be returned to the taxpayer, not siphoned into an inefficient bureaucratic monstrosity.

    I also think it is pretty absurd to cite such concerns and then scream about voting for Obama and the Democrats. Obama went into Lybia and is threatening Syria and Iran. And in case you’ve forgotten, Bill Clinton went into the Balkans, twice, and LBJ gave us the Vietnam War. If you want to go even further back, it was FDR who got us into WWII and Wilson who got us into WWI. I’ll leave aside the value judgments of these military adventures. The point is that Democrats get us into more wars than Republicans do, because they have always been more idealistic and willing to believe that ideas can be spread and imposed by force. It is nothing but an extension of their socialistic philosophy, which imposes ideas by force domestically. Republican war-idealism is a new thing (hence why we call those who promote it NEOconservatives).

    Obama is a warmonger. And unlike Bush, his war in Lybia had no Congressional approval.

  • Richard you are a thinking person and I invite you to read about the “Light to the Nations” Pope Leo XVII. That would be a good start.

  • Anzlyne,

    You mean Pope Leo XIII, right?

  • hahaha
    sorry sometimes I type too fast! ha– I do mean Thirteenth! and I see that I also wrote light to the nations! Lumen gentium! what a goofy post– I meant Light in the Heavens! ( remember St. malachy called him that)– Thanks Bonchamps

  • CAPS ON!!! EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!! NO ARGUMENT!!!!

  • yes I know very well he didn’t write that– I was just saying that in my gooofy post I meant to write” Light in the Heavens” but my brain slipped to that other familiar phrase– which is the title (taken from the first sentence) of the Dogmatic Constitution–

  • I really don’t follow the argument that a service that has become highly technical cannot be a right.

    Whether we have a right to healthcare, or to access to healthcare, depends on the fundamental nature of the service (that is, the removal of suffering and the preservation of life), not the cost or sophistication of the technology. People are not to be left to die on the street, because they have a right to life. If, for example, someone passes out in my house, it is my obligation to apply CPR. This is my level of knowledge. CPR was unknown in prior generations, but I have the knowledge, and I am duty bound to apply it. If someone was shot on the battlefield during the Civil War, there was an obligation to perform an amputation or apply a tourniquet.

    It seems to me you are saying that, if someone is ill, they are entitled to whatever care one could naturally give them without technology – bed rest, dressing a wound, etc., but otherwise it is moral to let them die. This seems so ludicrous that I can’t imagine that is your position.

  • “I really don’t follow the argument that a service that has become highly technical cannot be a right.”

    I don’t know why you would try, since that isn’t my argument at all. My argument is that something that hasn’t been a “basic human right” throughout most of human history cannot possibly be a basic human right today because it suddenly looks like we might have the wealth and resources for everyone to have it (we don’t). Scarcity isn’t an “injustice”; its just a natural condition that all of the ideological temper-tantrums in the world can’t make go away.

    “Whether we have a right to healthcare, or to access to healthcare, depends on the fundamental nature of the service (that is, the removal of suffering and the preservation of life), not the cost or sophistication of the technology. ”

    My point is that you can declare whatever you want a “right”; if reality prevents it from being produced and distributed for all who might need it, then such declarations are not only meaningless, but potentially harmful to society.

    ” If, for example, someone passes out in my house, it is my obligation to apply CPR.”

    That’s not “healthcare.” That’s charity. And it isn’t your legal obligation to apply CPR, but the advocates of universal healthcare want to force us all to pay into a healthcare system to satisfy their social ideals.

    “This is my level of knowledge. CPR was unknown in prior generations, but I have the knowledge, and I am duty bound to apply it. If someone was shot on the battlefield during the Civil War, there was an obligation to perform an amputation or apply a tourniquet.”

    Yeah, I don’t know what this has to do with anything. I mean, if in your battlefield there are more injured people then there are tourinquets, no one is going to say it is a situation of profound injustice that some people will simply bleed to death. The reality of scarcity was understood by all. There isn’t always enough to go around. If and when there is enough, then YES, of course charity obliges us to provide what we can for those who need. My argument is against those who think they can overcome the realities of scarcity with government edicts and philosophical pronouncements of new rights.

    “It seems to me you are saying that, if someone is ill, they are entitled to whatever care one could naturally give them without technology – bed rest, dressing a wound, etc., but otherwise it is moral to let them die. This seems so ludicrous that I can’t imagine that is your position.”

    I certainly never said that. If you think I said that, maybe you could copy and paste what I said that gave you such an impression.

  • You in fact said:

    “On one level, something that has only been available for roughly a century or so cannot possibly be a “basic human right.” ”

    Now, you pretend you didn’t say any such thing, and that you were only talking about “scarcity.” It’s quite plain where I got the idea that I considered your argument to be based on modern technology – because there is no other way to intepret the sentence quoted above. So much for intellectual honesty.

  • I can see why your comments are put on moderation. It doesn’t occur to you that there might be a miscommunication here: you jump right to the uncharitable accusation of dishonesty.

    This is how you cast my position: “if someone is ill, they are entitled to whatever care one could naturally give them without technology – bed rest, dressing a wound, etc., but otherwise it is moral to let them die.”

    First, I never said anyone was entitled to anything. No one has ever been entitled to any of these things. People have had individual moral obligations to provide what they can, when they can, for those in need.

    Secondly, what I said has only been available for a century or so has been cradle-to-grave healthcare. This is what is demanded by those who classify “healthcare” as such as a “basic human right”, and who believe that this “right” obliges governments to provide it.

    And yet this thing they demand as a right, has only been available for about 100 years. So how can it be something that people have always been entitled to? No one in the past insisted that cradle-to-grave healthcare was a “basic human right” because it would have been impossible to provide it for every single person. Such a thing couldn’t even be imagined. No one said, “we live under a regime of injustice because we can’t snap our fingers and make the resources to provide everyone with this basic human right appear before us.” It was just a fact of life. There was no “right” to that which couldn’t exist.

    My argument is that it still doesn’t exist today. It just so happens that our level of technological advancement has made it so that SOME people, and in fact, a significant majority of people, can afford it, while others cannot. And this strikes people as unfair. And so they imagine that what some people have, everyone ought to have in order for fairness to be achieved. And they then insist that the government has an obligation to make it fair. And they clothe these presumptions in the language of “rights” in order to strike a chord in our hearts.

    You accuse me of saying that it is MORAL to “let people die.” I am not proposing that it is some positive act of morality to say to a person, “we’re not going to give you what you need because you can’t afford it.” But I would say that you can’t classify a situation of scarcity itself as a state of injustice or immorality, because that is simply the way the world is. Nor can you overcome such a state by saying that the thing which cannot be made available to all is a “basic human right” that governments MUST make available to all.

Archbishop Chaput and the Media

Friday, August 26, AD 2011

One of the most irritating aspects of life for faithful American Catholics over the past several decades has been how quiet most of our bishops have been in the face of outrageous attacks on the Church.  Too many of our bishops have acted as if they had their spines surgically removed upon consecration.  Fortunately there have always been a handful who have been willing to speak out and suffer the media attacks that then ensue, along with the ambushes of heterodox Catholics frequently eager to lend a hand to anti-Catholics in their ceaseless war against the Church.  One of the more outspoken bishops is Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, who has never been afraid to proclaim the truth, and to do so eloquently.  He is at it again over at First Things.

Continue reading...

32 Responses to Archbishop Chaput and the Media

  • “Some of the usual suspects on the Catholic Left are upset at the Archbishop for naming some of their cherished propaganda organs…”

    I think that’s true for some. I also think that for some on the Catholic Left the NY Times reflects their view of the Church or, perhaps more accurately, what they want the Church to become.

  • Well Phillip, over the years certainly some members of the Catholic Left have been far more faithful to the magisterium of the New York Times than they ever have to the magisterium of the Church!

  • “Some of the usual suspects on the Catholic Left are upset at the Archbishop for naming some of their cherished propaganda organs…”

    They’re also upset that the Archbishop didn’t call out their own fave Catholic publications – Commonweal, America, National Catholic Distorter – as good sources for Catholic commentary. Thing is, they’re not good sources for Catholic commentary, and the Archbishop knows this. The Distorter especially – a vanguard for all that is opposed to Catholic teaching.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • An excellent resource on this subject is the Get Religion blog, which examines coverage of all religions and religious traditions in the media and points out gaps or inaccuracies. In many stories, Get Religion says religion is present only as a “ghost” — an unnamed reference to people doing works of charity or attending rallies or “vigils” without mention of the fact that a religious motivation was behind it.

    From reading the mainstream media, you would think that thousands of people feed the hungry, travel to disaster zones, spend long hours at a sick or injured person’s bedside (doing what? PRAYING, maybe?), devote themselves to improving their communities, etc. for no apparent reason, other than, perhaps, some vague reference to their “values.”

  • “We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith”

    and CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, Wash. Post, Boston Globe, etc, etc, etc

  • We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC, NPR, Washington Post, Boston Globe, for reliable news about ANYTHING.

  • I would include as unreliable the Catholic News Service, which if I mistake me not, is a service of the USCCB. It gave a favorable review to the homosexual movie Heartbreak Mountain. Another disservice of the bureaucracy of the USCCB.

  • “It gave a favorable review to the homosexual movie Heartbreak Mountain”

    I take it you are referring to BROKEBACK Mountain?

    Aside from the movie reviews, whose suitability can and often will be disputed, whether or not Catholic News Service is a “reliable” source of Church news depends on how you define “reliable.”

    In the Catholic press, there is always going to be a tension between the need to promote and adhere to Church teaching and the need to realistically report what is going on in the Catholic world whether or not it is agreeable to Church teaching. I have to admit that I am somewhat biased in favor of CNS due to the fact that I once worked for a diocesan newspaper that relied heavily on CNS news, and some of whose personnel personally knew people from CNS.

    If you rely solely on traditional/conservative leaning publications, you may get the impression that conservative/orthodox/traditional Catholicism is a lot more popular and widespread than it actually is. On the other hand, if you rely on left-leaning sites like National Catholic Reporter, you get the impression that the “spirit of Vatican II” crowd still reigns supreme, which is also not the case. There still needs to be a reasonably middle of the road source of Catholic news which doesn’t actively promote dissent but doesn’t ignore its real-world impact, or ignore the fact that the Church still has a long way to go in getting most of its members fully on board with its teachings.

    While I understand the disillusionment many people have with the mainstream media, and yes they do often get things wrong, still, I think it is VERY dangerous to dismiss them completely and insist on getting ALL your news only from sources that agree 100% with your political or religious leanings. Balance is the key here.

  • Wow Elaine,
    It almost sounds like you should be writing for Vox Nova. 😉
    Well put.

  • Nah, Brett, if Elaine were writing for Vox Nova she would have to say something truly absurd like mentioning Chaput in mouth disease, and I doubt if Elaine would ever say anything like that. Finally, I doubt if Elaine could make it past the Vox Nova entrance interview:

    http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6987327/welcome-to-vox-nova

  • You’re right Don, I would not get past Rule #2. I certainly would flunk out by Rule #5 (“Paul Krugman is the living embodiment of Catholic social teaching.”)

  • Don’t worry Elaine. They let me write whatever I want and I don’t even know who Paul Krugman is!

    Also Don, no one at VN has ever forced me to say anything “truly absurd.” Elaine wouldn’t HAVE to say anything of the sort.
    😉

    All peace and good,
    B

  • “Also Don, no one at VN has ever forced me to say anything “truly absurd.” ”

    That is good to know Brett. Judging from Minion’s posts I assumed there was some sort of requirement.

  • I’ve got to agree with Elaine — the Catholic News Service (and even the movie reviews, though I certainly don’t always agree with them) serves a useful purpose, and I’ve never found it to be an organ used for questioning or undercutting the faith.

    Brett,

    To not even know who Paul Krugman is, you’d have to be skimming MM’s posts pretty thinly. After all, in the very post linked to here MM chides Archbishop Chaput for not listening to Krugman more:

    Why does Chaput not mention any of this? Is he so insecure that he cannot handle criticism of the Church in the New York Times, and must instead run to those who use the Church for their political aims? Does he see no nuance and complexity? Is he not aware that he can learn far more about the economic mess from Paul Krugman in the New York Times than anybody on any alternative media source?

    I mean, I agree with those who knock people like Voris for bishop-bashing at the drop of a hat, but this is, if anything, worse.

    I will say, though, that I’ve always enjoyed reading your posts, which are both fair and intellectually curious. (I just wish that you’d keep a separate blog like Kyle does, so that it isn’t necessary for those of us bullies who might be divisive pamphleteers of the verge of kicking off a new Reformation to wade through the main site to read your stuff.)

  • “Judging from Minion’s posts I assumed there was some sort of requirement.”

    “…I don’t even know who Paul Krugman is!”

    Brett is clearly not reading Minion’s paeans to Krugman.

  • The quoted bit from MM on Krugman hardly tells me anything beyond the fact that he writes about economics for the New York Times and that MM thinks he has some insight. Surely that is not enough for me to know whether he is “the living embodiment of Catholic social teaching,” or even if MM considers him to be such.

    Perhaps the very favorable recent posts linking to the Distributist Review should give certain people pause before they announce exactly whom the Vox Novans think accurately represents CST (or is Krugman a Distributist?) or that all Vox Novans must be of the same opinion on such matters.

  • Brett,

    VN is well known for being disobedient to the Magisterium and for attacking orthodox Catholics.

  • Tito,

    I don’t believe I’ve ever seen any of the current frequent posters on Vox Nova dissent from Catholic doctrine.

    That many of them do specialize in “friendly fire” towards other orthodox Catholics is arguably true, though.

    Brett,

    Well, unless the Distributist Review is not an alternative news source, it would seem that MM does believe Chaput could derive more benefit from reading Krugman than from reading the Distributist Review. (Actually, this is probably not surprising, as MM is probably too educated in regards to economics to be terribly impressed with the Distributists.)

    But to be fair, that hilarious parody dates back to when Henry, MM, MZ and Iafrate were the mainlines of Vox Nova. The place has, somewhat diluted its craziness since then.

  • Tito,

    I don’t believe I’ve ever seen any of the current frequent posters on Vox Nova dissent from Catholic doctrine.

    That many of them do specialize in “friendly fire” towards other orthodox Catholics is arguably true, though.

    Brett,

    Well, unless the Distributist Review is not an alternative news source, it would seem that MM does believe Chaput could derive more benefit from reading Krugman than from reading the Distributist Review. (Actually, this is probably not surprising, as MM is probably too educated in regards to economics to be terribly impressed with the Distributism, at least where economics is involved. Chesterton and Belloc were admirable in lots of ways, but their economic analysis was not necessarily great. MM is probably right to rely more on Keynes and Krugman than on Chesterton and Belloc when it comes to actual economic theory.)

    To be fair, though, that hilarious parody dates back to when Henry, MM, MZ and Iafrate were the mainlines of Vox Nova. The place has, somewhat diluted its craziness since then — in regards to contributors at least. (Oddly, the comboxes seem to have gone even further off the deep end — though perhaps that’s just a matter of the “other side” not bothering to show up much anymore. I suppose in some ways we’ve had an equal and opposite history here. Given the natural affinities of belief, it may be that political sites natural sort themselves into either right or left with few dissenting voices bothering to show up.)

  • Darwin,

    I wasn’t aware that killing children in the womb was part of Catholic teaching.

  • I’m not either, but I was giving them credit for the fact that Gerald L. Campbell hasn’t posted there in a very long time. (Though I agree it was disgraceful that everyone at the time defended his claim that being pro-choice was a legitimate exercise of subsidiarity.)

    People like MM and MZ do everything possible to support pro-abortion candidates, because those candidates happen to also be leftists, but they insist that they are not in fact pro-abortion themselves (and would vote for anti-abortion leftists if they existed) so I figure it’s fair to categorize them as unwise rather than dissenting.

    Ditto on the tendency to attack pro-lifers far more often than pro-aborts while at the same time claiming to be pro-life.

    Don’t get me wrong. I have no desire to defend them. I just want to be precise in my attacks. 🙂

  • OK, I’ll back track.

    Certain bloggers are disobedient.

    The rest of the bunch are essentially good guys and it would be nice to share a beer with them because it would make for interesting conversation(s)!

    😀

  • Precision is always appreciated. As is beer.

  • As for a personal blog, here you go:
    http://vox-nova.com/category/brett-salkeld/

    I’m only tempted to set up something a little more formal because I think “Ein Brett Vorm Kopf” would be a great name.

  • Can’t let a name like that go to waste!

    I guess I should just bookmark the category link. For some reason, it’s not possible to put the category links into an RSS reader.

  • It would be helpful though if those bloggers on Vox Nova who are not in dissent do correct those who post comments who are. That would make it appear less likely that they are dissenting.

  • “MM is probably too educated in regards to economics to be terribly impressed with the Distributism, at least where economics is involved. Chesterton and Belloc were admirable in lots of ways, but their economic analysis was not necessarily great. MM is probably right to rely more on Keynes and Krugman than on Chesterton and Belloc when it comes to actual economic theory.)”.

    Yes, as regards “economic theory”. But economics in practice? A good antidote to Keynes [Krugman is not worth the effort] is J.K. Galbraith’s ALMOST EVERYONE’S GUIDE TO ECONOMICS. He makes the point that economics is not that difficult to understand. Thus, in the controversy about raising the debt limit, it is not difficult to understand that you cannot keep writing checks on an account without money. Belloc understood this; GKC understood this. Even B. Obama as a senator understood this.

    In May 1939, shortly after learning that unemployment stood at 20.7%, Henry Morgenthau, the secretary of the Treasury, exploded: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” Morgenthau concluded, “I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”

  • From the other side of the pond, I rate the orthodoxy of your bishops according to extent that they are excoriated by the liberal media – Burke, Olmsted, Chaput et al. The fact that none of ours has yet to be targeted by the Tablet, the English equivalent of the National Catholic Reporter, is cause for concern.

Interview On the Radio Today at 5pm Eastern

Wednesday, June 8, AD 2011

I will be interviewed on the radio today at 5pm (Eastern) on the In His Sign Network radio station.  They are a lay Catholic radio apostolate located in Rosemont, PA.  They broadcast daily live from 5 to 6pm (Eastern) WTMR-800 AM and on the Internet at www.inhissign.com.

The interview will be about The American Catholic and the other Catholic websites that I operate as well as my work on the National Catholic Register.

This is my first interview and it is an already humbling experience.  Pray for me that I won’t make a fool of myself!

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Interview On the Radio Today at 5pm Eastern

Vote for the National Catholic Register

Wednesday, March 2, AD 2011

The secular website About.com is running a contest of which is the Best Catholic Newspaper (among many other categories).  I’d like our readers to go visit their website to vote for the National Catholic Register as their choice (if it’s not your choice, move along and read the other articles here on our website).

The National Catholic Register is America’s oldest Catholic newspaper as well as being the most read and well written.  They hold fidelity to the teachings of the Magisterium so you know you’re getting high quality articles.

To vote for the National Catholic Register please click here.

Continue reading...

Res et Explicatio for AD 9-7-2009

Monday, September 7, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

Buckle Up! Because here are today’s Top Picks in the world of Catholicism:

1. Sadly most of us will miss the Catholic Report blog run by Dave Hartline.  Due to pleasant new circumstances of a new member of the family, Dave will be rolling back some of his extra-curricular activities to attend to his growing family.  In addition Dave will be the newest contributor to the American Catholic website and joining our family of writers.

2. Since First Things began gobbling up good bloggers such as Spengler, Wesley J. Smith, and Elizabeth Scalia and adding writers such as the American Catholic’s own Christopher Blosser, Jay Anderson, and Joseph Bottum under the First Thoughts blog, their website has gotten a WHOLE lot better.  Many interesting stories and newsbites all neatly marketed in a spiffy new look.

I suggest you all check it out here.

Continue reading...

One Response to Res et Explicatio for AD 9-7-2009

Interview with Alphonse Creator Matthew Lickona

Monday, July 20, AD 2009

I posted a while back about the publication of Alphonse, a graphic novel written by Matthew Lickona and drawn by Chris Gugliotti. I’ve since had a chance to read Alphonse, Issue One and enjoyed it. It’s an off-beat and dark story, but a very evocative one. Alphonse’s mother is a serious druggie — long in denial about the fact she is pregnant. When she shows up at a women’s health clinic, 34 weeks pregnant, she insists that she can’t go through with the pregnancy, and a doctor agrees to provide an abortion and hysterectomy. However, Alphonse is not your ordinary, helpless child of 34 weeks gestation. He is, through fate or the harsh mix of chemicals his mother’s habits have exposed him to, aware of her thoughts and his danger, and also unusually coordinated for his size and age.

In the first issue we see his escape from the abortion clinic, and his rescue by a pro-life protester who takes him home and begins to nurse him through the withdrawal which removal from his mother’s chemical habits causes. A man of action despite standing under twenty inches tall, Alphonse seems poised to bring about changes in the intersecting lives of a number of characters.

Alphonse is not a political cartoon or simple message book. It is a gritty fantasy told in a macabrely inventive visual style — using a fantastic situation to explore a topic which is often considered radioactive in our society. Abortion is a topic which many seek to pigeonhole quietly by declaring a “tragedy”. Alphonse seeks to be the Macbeth to this tragedy — bloody, bold and resolute.

Author Matthew Lickona agreed to answer a set of questions for me in order to provide you with this interview.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Interview with Alphonse Creator Matthew Lickona